The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Runewolf1973]

Well, in this case I postulate the necessary truth that evolution is a lie and it isn't science. There you go, now you have the facts.

In light of all the easily observable evidence in support of evolution, I would have to be a complete idiot to not accept it as scientific fact. People are free to believe whatever they want though. Ignorance is bliss for some.


---

 

[Ouroboros]

Even though evolution doesn't contradict God (necessarily), I don't see any evidence for it, regardless of how you want to put it.

Well, that's another question all together.

I just wanted you to understand that Evolution in itself does not contradict God. It only contradicts a particular view of God (the instantaneous creator, the image of a carpenter or potter making things with his/her hands). So I think I've reached my goal while reading your particular response above.

Consider that plants and lifeforms are born, grow, and die all by biological processes, right now. You can't deny that. (Just put evolution aside for a moment). The biological process has been and is studied quite a bit. We know a lot more how DNA controls the body plan, metabolism, and so on. And it goes for all life. Right? But it's an automatic process. You don't see God miraculously make each seed grow to a plant. It's a natural process. So God must've made it to a process if he/she/it created life.

Naturedidit is the naturalists version of Godditit. Gotcha.

My view is God=Nature. They're kind'a the same.

Like you said some week ago that you believe that God could have just "thought" the universe into existence. If God is part of making things happen right now, then it's still God's thoughts. Nature is God's thoughts. How about that? So God is more than Nature, but Nature is very much part of God.

Besides, naturedidit means that we can test it to confirm if it's true (which we've done with evolution), while goddidit can't be tested since it only happened once and not continuously (like evolution). Evolution we can study because nature supports it. God we cannot study because he's supposedly way beyond our comprehension.

Yeah, I find it really really hard to understand how a reptile can change to a bird. So far, I haven't been able to "get" that part. Oh, the irony.

The "reptile" we're talking about is actually of the dinosaur kind. The first birds we can find in the fossil record has bone structure and features like a dinosaur (skull for instance looks more like a dinosaur than a bird), but it has feathers, and a tail (not bird tail, but dino tail), and they've found several of these. So the irony is that the bird-dino is a bird and a dino. Then on top of that, we have fossil records for how the dino evolved to reptiles. So yeah, they're long distant cousins. (If I remember it right)

I believe life is evolving too. We've seen our fair share of dogs producing different varieties of dogs, and cats-cats, etc. But reptiles to birds? Nope. Not buying it.

Then the dino-bird was a dino-bird kind. And the other dino-dino-bird and dino-bird-birds are separate kinds too. And dino*3-bird and dino-bird*3. There are many different species all between all these "kinds".

I haven't seen any of these natural processes, have you? All I hear is the bio-babble. I haven't seen any processes. I can tell you what I have seen...animals produce what they are, not what they aren't. That is what I've seen, and there is not reason for me to go beyond that.

Have you seen this or seen that? First of all, I have seen and studied some fossils, yes. Had to in class. Have you seen God creating the world? If not, then I can only hear theology-babble. I've seen the skulls and done a little field studies as well, and I was Christian for a long time. Comparing the two experiences, there's most definitely a lot more evidence for evolution than creationism.

Once again, I don't see any evidence of macroevolution. All I see are animals producing their own kind, and I refuse to believe that millions of years after I die, or millions of years before I made my dwelling on earth, that animals will start making these transformations. Don't buy it. If you want to believe that reptiles evolved in to birds, fine, believe what you want. But I don't.

It's very simple though. Geneticists have found the genes that control the body plan. By changing them ever so slightly, the body structure do change. In one case (or maybe there are more now) they managed to identify exactly all the genes for the body plan for a worm. Look up hox genes and body plan.

Dogs produce dogs, Ouro. Point blank. Period. If you don't get it, then there's nothing I can add.

The answer is yes and no.

Your genes are not identical to your daddy's or your mommy's because you have first of all a combination of half of each genes and you have most likely a few mutations of your own without knowing it. Each offspring is slightly different than their parents. And by small changes over time, generation 100 is not the same as generation 1. And we do have genetics and observations in nature to support this.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The argument wants to quickly pass over premise 1 in order to require us to accept the conclusion (6), via premises 2 -5, which are valid it must be said.

Only in modal systems with S5. In S4 or weaker, the MOA is not even valid.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Not at all. I don't have to make a deductive proof. I can simply say "It is possible for God to exist". That proposition is either true, or it is false. It just so happen that it is true, and if it is true, then God must exist because all possible necessary truths must exist in reality.

No. Not without an additional premise- that it is possible that "God exists" is necessarily true. But that is equivalent to the premise that "God exists" is necessarily true. Which is the conclusion, and which makes it question-begging.

Once more 'round the merry-go-round?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Even though evolution doesn't contradict God (necessarily), I don't see any evidence for it, regardless of how you want to put it.

Mountains of evidence actually do exist, hence why it's the prevailing (and only) theory to describe the diversity of life on earth.

The problem is that you refuse to look at it. And admit as much. Which is why your claim that you're schooling everyone on this thread is completely laughable.

 

[McBell]

When dealing with necessary truths, X does exist if it is possible for X to exist. That is the case with necessary truths. Now it is true that when dealing with contingent propositions, then you are correct, X doesn't exist if it is possible for X to exist. But we are not TALKING ABOUT CONTINGENT TRUTHS. We are talking about NECESSARY TRUTHS.

And yet until such time as you can show your "necessary truth" is in fact a "necessary truth"...

You keep glossing over that part.

Not at all. I don't have to make a deductive proof. I can simply say "It is possible for God to exist". That proposition is either true, or it is false. It just so happen that it is true,...

Declaration of faith?
Posing belief as fact?
Wishful thinking?

The problem here is you have not shown your claimed "fact" to be anything other than wishful thinking.

and if it is true, then God must exist because all possible necessary truths must exist in reality.

This is no different then when someone says that all things that were created have to have a creator.
Yes, all things created have to have a creator.
The prom is that you now have to show that the universe was created.
Now since you cannot show that the universe was created....

See, no deduction made; just a proposition. All you can then do is attack the proposition in a way to make it false, which, so far, you haven't been able to do.

Actually, we can (and have) asked you to substantiate your premises.
You have not done so.

There fore we can simply dismiss it.

But lets be serious here, either way, your refutation has no merit, because the argument is just as valid when stated...

1. God is defined as a MGB (four omnis), which would include necessary existence, supernatural, etc.

2. Since it is possible for God as defined in #1 to exist, God must exist

See, 5 or 6 steps broken down into just 2. There is just nothing you or anyone can do about it. I know it is hard to accept because if God exists, it would turn your whole world upside down. But hey, like death and taxes; sooner or later, it is gonna get to you.

Why bother with step 2 at all?
The you have already defined god to exist in step one.

 

[McBell]

It is realy just a matter of free choice as to whether we believe in God or not.

Agreed.

Philosophical debates just confuse a simple matter,

Simple?
Interesting.
I happen to disagree that it is "simple".

and we know who is the author of confusion.

Yes.
God.

That is why we are here; "TO CHOOSE" one way or the other.
See the "Wheat and Tares Parable":areyoucra Matthew 13: 24-30; 36-43 KJV if Possible.
JohnB

I disagree with your false dichotomy.

 

[fantome profane]

Even though evolution doesn't contradict God (necessarily),

Then why are so many of your arguments theological? Don't you understand that these theological arguments are going to be perceived as irrelevant? (Irrelevant at best)

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The argument wants to quickly pass over premise 1 in order to require us to accept the conclusion (6), via premises 2 -5, which are valid it must be said.

This one objection alone refutes the first premise, which halts any progression to the conclusion. Of course this particular objection only refutes the God of Classical Theism, but there are still other ontological difficulties to be overcome even if the attribute of omnibenevolence is dropped (which would be an anathema to most Christian Theists).[/FONT][/COLOR]

In order for you to hold the objection of omnibenevolence, you yourself would have to be omniscient. I mean, assuming that God had a divine purpose, and his divine purpose must be carried out for the greater good, certain things has to happen to ensure this; a certain criteria has to be met in order for this to occur. So if the suffering that God allows happens for a greater good, a good that you cannot even BEGIN to understand or see with your finite knowledge and presence, then you can't logically say that suffering is incompatible with an ominibenevolent being.

For example, suppose a 7 year old girl was sexually molested by her father. Now suppose God knew that the only way the girl was going to love and accept him was if she got molested, so God allowed the girl to get molested. Now of course, God will discipline her father at whatever time he sees fit, but it is the salvation of the girl that is more important/the greater good that God is looking for. Christians believe that the joys and pleasures of heaven will filled with so much euphoria that all of the pain and suffering that we've suffered on earth, we will be willing to undergo these things 10x over if we knew what awaited us in heaven.

So take any "suffering" X; How do you know that God doesn't have morally sufficient reasons for allowing this act? I really would like you to answer this question. I mean, take any suffering of X, it can be personal or otherwise...how do you know that God doesn't have morally sufficient reasons to allow it to happen? Take any patient that is suffering from terminal cancer. How do you know that this person didn't murder person 30 years ago, and no one knew about the murder but God...no one knew this person committed this crime but God...and God choose to give this person cancer as an act of judgement. But all you see is the suffering that the man is in...you don't know the reason behind it.

I mean, on a personal and emotional note, to be quite honest, I've been a bit of a hypochondriac these past few years. I keep thinking that I am destined for pancreatic cancer, one of the worse (if the the worse) cancers you can possibly have.

Now suppose my faith is very very strong with the Lord, and I am diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Now suppose I touch a lot of people with the story of my illness AND my faith. Now suppose my story and faith allows 10 people in Montana to be converted and saved. Now suppose God used ME as a token to get those people saved.

Now suppose this scenario is actually true, and the reasons I was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer is so that 10 people would be saved, and God used me in a way to ensure this...if this was to happen, I would BE HONORED. I would be freakin honored, because the ALMIGHTY GOD used ME (notice the emphasis on "me").

You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs; if God was to appear to me in divine revelation or in the afterlife and say to me "I used you for the conversion of 10 newly converted apostles in Montana. I knew that you would remain faithful to me despite your ailment....". That would make things all the worthwhile, in my opinion.

I think the problem of evil fails because those that use it just doesn't have the knowledge and foresight to make judgments on the actions (or lack thereof) of an Almighty God. As long as morally sufficient reasons are even POSSIBLE, then the argument fails

The second thing to be said is that no existential demonstration follows from modal propositions alone. “Existence” implies that a thing is or obtains outside of any logical demonstration in some aspect, feature, form, or place etc. It cannot exist merely as a concept or a set of characteristics, such as omnipotence for example; for we wouldn’t say “omnipotence exists”!

Ummm cot, the argument just makes the case; all possible necessary truths must exist in reality, and this is true even if there was no argument to make the case. The truth value of a proposition is true or false independent of what is known. Second, if the argument is true, then OMINIPOTENCE does exist, as more than just a concept.

There has to be some object in which the characteristics inhere or are manifested. And so if it is asserted that there is a Maximally Great Being that necessarily exists, then it must be demonstrable outside of the proposition, which is to say in reality, which is what the term “existence” refers to. For an entity that exists in actual reality as well as being logically demonstrable is maximally greater than an entity that exists only as a logical demonstration. I don't think there can be any disagreement over that conclusion.

Oh but I believe that it is, cot. It is demonstrable outside of the proposition. I was going to make an entire thread about it, actually. The fact of the matter is, the kalam cosmological argument (KCA) corroborates the modal ontological argument (MOA).

And to give a brief sketch...the KCA makes a case for an metaphysically necessary being, one that transcends (transcended) all space, time, matter, and natural energy. This being would have to be omniscience, and one with unimaginable power (being able to create from nothing).

The MOA makes the case that a MGB exists, and at least three of those attributes that the KCA claims MUST be necessary based on a finite universe are covered in the MOA (necessary, omniscient, omnipotent). One argument supports the other, and I think both can be demonstrated on a philosophical level with corroboration from empirical evidence as well.

Further more, if God can be conceived to be non-existent in this the actual (and therefore possible) world, without involving a contradiction or some other absurdity, then it follows that there is no Maximally Great Being in every world, which means that no Maximally Great Being exists of necessity. For as Hume said: ‘it will always be possible for us at any time to conceive the non-existence of what we formally conceived to exist.’ He also said: ‘…nor can the mind lie under a necessity of supposing any object to remain in always in being in the same manner that we lie under the necessity of always conceiving twice two to be four.’ In sum, there is no entailment from ‘God has necessary existence’ to ‘Necessarily God exists.’ So, if it is possible to conceive the non-existence of any object, then its non-existence is possible and therefore it cannot be necessary. If a thing is necessary and an absolute truth then it cannot be thought as false, as with the 2 + 2 = 4 example that Hume mentioned. And yet, regardless of any definition, concept, or proposition we can conceive of there being no God, which would be impossible if God’s existence is necessary, certain and true.

I remember when you first raised this objection, and I will admit, I was stumped at first (which doesn't happen to often on here). But I think I've figured it out.

You are saying if God is necessary, like the #1, then you shouldn't be able to think of a possible world at which God doesn't exist, like the #1. But you can, so God cannot be said to be necessary, because you can think of a possible world at which God couldn't exist.

My response to this is simple; if you can think of a world at which God doesn't exist, then you are not thinking of the same God as defined as a MGB. Take for example the attribute of omniscience. To be omniscience is to know all true propositions (all knowing), right. Now, if it is a FACT that being X has the necessary attribute of omniscience, then I can't think of a possible world at which being X doesn't know a given proposition. If I can think of a possible world at which being X doesn't know a given proposition, then I am not really thinking of being X in the first place.

So if you can think of a possible world at which a MGB doesn't exist, then you are not really thinking of a MGB, you are thinking of a being other than a MGB, because a MGB cannot fail to exist, just like numbers and other abstract objects. Or take any other attribute...omnipresence. I can't think of a world at which an omnipresent God doesn't exist. If I think of a world where an omnipresent God doesn't exist, then I am not thinking of an omnipresent God. I am thinking of more of a contingent God, but certainly not an omnipresent God.

And if I’m right in what I’ve said above then it can be objected that it is possible that there is no Maximally Great Being, and from which the conclusion must follow necessarily that a Maximally Great Being is an impossible concept.

Oh, you should know that it is never that easy, cot.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Then why are so many of your arguments theological? Don't you understand that these theological arguments are going to be perceived as irrelevant? (Irrelevant at best)

Because science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain. You can't use science to explain the origins of nature, which is why we appeal to intelligent design.

If I told you to explain the origins of your computer, no big deal, right? But here is the catch; you cannot use anything that is external to the computer itself. How would you do it?

 

[fantome profane]

Because science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain. You can't use science to explain the origins of nature, which is why we appeal to intelligent design.

If I told you to explain the origins of your computer, no big deal, right? But here is the catch; you cannot use anything that is external to the computer itself. How would you do it?

Is that a theological argument? What does it have to do with the origin of species?

 

[McBell]

For example, suppose a 7 year old girl was sexually molested by her father. Now suppose God knew that the only way the girl was going to love and accept him was if she got molested, so God allowed the girl to get molested. Now of course, God will discipline her father at whatever time he sees fit, but it is the salvation of the girl that is more important/the greater good that God is looking for. Christians believe that the joys and pleasures of heaven will filled with so much euphoria that all of the pain and suffering that we've suffered on earth, we will be willing to undergo these things 10x over if we knew what awaited us in heaven.

Wow.
Do you honestly believe this pile of bull ****?

Now I know for a fact I want nothing to do with your chosen deity.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Why bother with step 2 at all?
The you have already defined god to exist in step one.

No because if I put you in step one and define you in the same way I defined God, that would not "define" you to exist necessarily, would it? How I define YOU does nothing based on the truth value of whether or not it is actually true. Because the premise is FALSE. Do you understand? The premise would be FALSE. It just so happens that when God is in the equation, it is true. It is possible for God to exist, for all we know. I understand the fact that you people are so radical in your claims that the mere thought of God is just detestable, and you don't even want God to be a POSSIBILITY. I understand. However, that doesn't take anything away from the argument though. Something you are just gonna have to accept.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Wow.
Do you honestly believe this pile of bull ****?

Now I know for a fact I want nothing to do with your chosen deity.

So are you holding to a standard of morality that is violated if a 7 year old girl is molested? What argument can you give me that would make your standard of morality the right one? Or as I said, you are presupposing a standard of morality which you have no basis for upholding whatsoever? Where do you get your moral code from?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Is that a theological argument? What does it have to do with the origin of species?

When science can give me something good regarding how life came from nonlife, and consiousness came from unconsciousness...I will consider the "origin of species" as a viable scientific concept.

 

[McBell]

So are you holding to a standard of morality that is violated if a 7 year old girl is molested? What argument can you give me that would make your standard of morality the right one? Or as I said, you are presupposing a standard of morality which you have no basis for upholding whatsoever? Where do you get your moral code from?

If the only solution your "all powerful" deity can come up with is to allow the girl to be molested....


Like I said:
I now know that your chosen deity is not one I want anything to do with.

 

[McBell]

No because if I put you in step one and define you in the same way I defined God, that would not "define" you to exist necessarily, would it? How I define YOU does nothing based on the truth value of whether or not it is actually true. Because the premise is FALSE. Do you understand? The premise would be FALSE. It just so happens that when God is in the equation, it is true. It is possible for God to exist, for all we know. I understand the fact that you people are so radical in your claims that the mere thought of God is just detestable, and you don't even want God to be a POSSIBILITY. I understand. However, that doesn't take anything away from the argument though. Something you are just gonna have to accept.

All you have done is given god a free pass.
Why?

Why does god get a free pass?
I mean, other than you really really really really want god to exist?

 

[fantome profane]

When science can give me something good regarding how life came from nonlife, and consiousness came from unconsciousness...I will consider the "origin of species" as a viable scientific concept.

And this is just absurd. It is like saying until I can explain the the origin of water you refuse to see the rain.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If the only solution your "all powerful" deity can come up with is to allow the girl to be molested....

If God knew that this was the only way that the girl would become saved, then who can argue with it? See, the problem of evil appeals to the emotions, which is actually a fallacy. Notice that you disregarded the whole scenario and focused primarily on the molestation.

And that is the point; God knows what would be the best scenario to put people in to get them to know him. The problem is, some people don't want to get to know him, so no situation is "right" for everyone.

And trust me, there is nothing that we can go through on this earth without God that will even come close to what we will go through if we continue to live in our sins without him.

Like I said:
I now know that your chosen deity is not one I want anything to do with.

And like I said:

In order for you to disprove of any action or non-action by God, you are basing your critisism on a presupposed moral standard, that is at best...subjective.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And this is just absurd. It is like saying until I can explain the the origin of water you refuse to see the rain.

Notice that the rain is something that I can observe. Reptiles to birds and macroevolution is something I don't observe.